The equalizer's page

A Mongolian ninja hobo (Keleshite in Golarion).

He rode across many countries, striking down all manner of evil foes (and some Callistrians because they can just get lost). He stole the panties of a major cleric, framed the shady for crimes that they could not escape, engaged in negotiations and advised like-minded heroes, fought in mighty battles, hopped planes into the truly weird where he battled abberations, killed numerous targets with stabs to the rear with his falchion, fought beasts from ancient times that could only be harmed by bronze and assembled a range of falchions to hasten the demise of many foes and monsters, he also accumulated quite the poison collection. He engaged in fiery passion with a fey queen and gathered a magnificent crew of allies and henchmen to further aid the cause of good in the land.

He was the ninja hobo Muunokhoi.

His name translates as 'vicious dog', and he earned it.

To be continued........

Games which I attended don't designate someone to bring food or determine beforehand that everyone should bring something in the way of booze or something else that "contributes" in some way. Some people bring it, other times no one does and no one has a problem with that. For those who bring food or beer or whatever else to the game, most of us just make it a habit of returning the favour in some way. Perhaps not the next immediate session but two or three sessions later, depending on what's going on in their life at that time. I've brought beer or pizza a couple of times. Other people I know have brought food they personally cooked to the game to share with others. Even if no one "returns the favour", none of us have actually mentally blacklisted them as freeloaders or something else unpleasant. I suppose it largely depends on how maturely you want to deal with people. How willing you are, to give them the benefit of the doubt? If thats too much of a gamble, then I can see why the rest of the group has to know about any prospective new member of the ame in such detail. On a side note, if a new player is problematic, its not really the gm's job to throw them out. Normally, that responsibility involves the rest of the group to settle the problem in-game. If that doesn't work then someone's flying head-first out the driveway.Its not going to be the first time and sure isn't going to be the last.

I hate Antagonize and would never allow it in any game I run. It smacks of computer gaming, where you're facing pre-programmed foes who cannot think. The whole point of tabletop gaming is for real responsiveness.

/rant

Anyhoo, in the last campaign I played in, *I* was the PC with the super-high AC. I was also the PC with one of the highest DPRs in the party. The enemy couldn't ignore me, because if they did I would decimate them.

If the PCs can hurt them enough, their enemies will have to try and do *something* to contain them.

Also, unless you're metagaming, it would take more than a few swings to determine "I have no chance of hitting this guy." Combat just isn't that black-and-white.

Indeed. I couldn't agree more though I think there was a feat in dragon magazine which mimicked the antagonize feat. The only difference was that the pre-requisites were alot steeper. I didn't have a problem with that feat given it required so much more expenditure and the target gained a morale bonus to hit you.

Ignoring them after one round is a bit odd. As previously mentioned, it reeks of meta-gaming. Also, rolling an 18 or an 8 is not immediately clear cut from the attacker's perspective. The 18 will feel alot more co-ordinated than the 8 but the attacker doesn't know they have to hit an ac of x to sucessfully land a blow. The ac is just the number to constitute the total components of dex, armor...etc. For characters with high ac, they normally have a ton from not just armor but also dex based bonuses, deflection and so on. Combat run in multiple games I've been in has been fluid that way. I played a Ip Man sort of pugilist in a game last year. Monk with really high AC who actually drew certain opponents into "wasting" a couple of rounds atacking him. Not saying that every opponent just rushed his way and ignored everyone else. just that those that did had a much lower chance of hitting him than say, the hobgoblin swashbuckler. They attacked for a couple of rounds and some would change targets but they had already wasted 2-3 rounds doing so. It was quite intersting, with the dm describing the cuts and stabs, me describing the blocks and dodges, ducking and weaving. Returning the attacks with light palm strikes. After one round,the opponents didn't say "well that **** has an ac of mid 30s, guess we'll all ignore him now." If the opponents have been briefed or are aware of the particular character's strengths beforehand, then thats a different story but they weren't. Even with a high ac, such characters are not untouchable. Previously, touch attcks completely negate armor are one thing. There are also spells and special monstrous abilities which ignore ac and just force saves. Not to menton swarms and certain abilities which are area of effect and don't even allow a save. Alot can still affect high ac characters but they should be given the opportunity to shine instead of the dm singing the tune of "hur hur hur, everything just ignores you, your high ac character suxxxorx."

Not sure if its been mentioned before but if the campaign is heavy on opponents wielding manufactured weapons, take a disarming heavy flail, pair it with improved disarm and double weapon disarm. Seen it done. Very effective at what it does. It can also be used against non-weapons.

42. He thought he had 24 int when in actual fact, it was 12 int.

I try and reward both depending on how the players go about it. Want to play a good aligned character and be heroic? Denifitely rewarding in its own way. Want to try and be cunning foxes who take over the kingdom via fancy skill checks? Also very rewarding. Most dms I've known let it boil down to the player's actions. One really cool thing I saw was good and evil characters in the same party who didn't trust each other enough to know where they stood in regards to morality. So the good aligned pcs struggle against doing immoral acts. The evil aligned ones struggled against commiting good acts with insufficient wickedness attached. Throughout the process, they were trying to conceal their internal struggles. Everyone saw each other as being neutral. Lots of fun times and plot hooks.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

PF gets CR wrong again and again. I find I am always adding 1-2.

If your parties are optimized for 60 rounds of combat made up of hitting monsters with silver spoons while reciting Shakespeare, maybe :)

Lol. Just had an image of raging barbs swinging silver spoons and spellcasters summoning nothing but silver spoons against their opponents.

I've looked at a fair few monsters in APs, mainly the nastier non-boss encounters and really been confused at the listed CR. At high levels, start adding 3 or so to the CR for some monsters. Agreement on the succubi and especially dragons. Lot of attacks, moderately good attack bonus, pretty decent damage if they hit with multiple attacks, SLAs on top of SR and some other stuff makes them good in melee and casting. At times, it feels like the party is being ripped off on xp especially when they barely won and the dm hands out 200 experience.

yeah. They didn't try grappling or stunning fist though. They just flurried tinking that would be enough. That wasn't even a pure fighter or they would have been cut down in half the time.

The thing about the monk is that they are not pure pugilists. Not really. This is reflected in their bab which is moderate but not good. They are more like half-mystics and hlf-pugilists. Therefore it somewhat makes sense for them to be inferior to the barb and fighter in standing toe to toe with the opponent. Like the rogue, they aren't actually a frontline tanker. If you find your monk standing toe to toe with opponents in the frontline instead of being melee support, then somebody isn't doing their job or you have no idea how to control your monk to best complement the party. A pugilist would actually be closer to an unarmed swordsage. The system of utilisiting stances and maneuvers is more in line with the whole martial shtick. Also, unarmed strike is designed to be mechanically inferior to every other fighting style in terms of damage. Even sword and shield outdamages unarmed so the game doesn't exactly favour unarmed martial artists in damage. Doesn't mean you can't contribute. Max out the grapple or stunning fist(I'd pick stunning fist over grapple but both can also work). Ask if your DM will allow you to swap out improved disarm for something monk related such as extra stunning. Monks can be good but tanking and killing opponents in one round is not something they can do. On the other hand, if the idea of slowing down opponents or preventing them from acting to give the part an edge isn't quite your thing, don't play a monk. Thats what they actually specialize in. By specialize, I mean make sure your monk is good at it. If you ar maxing grapple, simply taking improved grapple and maxing out strength isn't going to cut it. If maxing out stunning fist, go the whole ten yards. If its in a monster heavy campaign, and you are maxing grapple, you'll be fine if your grapple mod is around +23 at by level 10. If its stunning fist and you are pushing a dc of 24, thats good. Seen certain monks who were not just well created but also well played forcing saves of 29. Their main weakness is against hard hitting opponents. I remember a quest to clear a monastery and the party fighter and barb cleared out 75% of the monastery.
Down to half hp by that point. It was a cake walk for them. But since thats their weakness, hasn't really bothered me or anyone I know.

Because its the worst weapon out of the category of polearms. Doubling the cost to enchant for such a weapon would only make sense if you had too much gold to spend.

Its not at all broken. Versus humanoids its a good solid build. If its a monster intensive campaign you're playing, such a build won't fare so well.

The warblade is also a really strong melee class but where the crazy stuff begins is when you have a fighter and warblade in the party, co-ordinating tactics. Scary stuff.

Casters will win hands down if opponents huddle together in clumps, fail every save and allow the caster a dozen actions per round. Yet to come across a game where that is the case. It normally tends to be pretty messy and being able to improvise on the fly or helping another pc to do their shtick (which tips the odds majorly in the party's favour) is a lot more common.

I seen a couple of high level games going till level 18 or so and the casters do not auto-dominate encounters at high levels. The same way martials don't auto-dominate at low levels. I've seen casters in high level games try the "teleport away and come back with summons" strategy and it normally turns out horrendously. Either the other pcs are dead or have fled. Otherwise, the encounter is pretty much over and the other pcs are victorious. Some DMs don't even award xp to the casters who do that in such a scenario.

@Wrath: You'ver hit the nail on the head with your post. Granted, every game is run differently with the game being more or less difficult depending on how the DM runs opponents. At high levels, everyone is trying to shut down their opponents, especially monstrous ones since they can do so much in such a short time. A pc disappearing for afew rounds can greatly tip the scales in the opponents favour.

There was one sargavan game I was in, playing a ninja. We ran into a couple of rustlords. The galtan fighter chose to back up so far that the penalties he was sitting on prevented him from hitting the creatures with thrown weapons. So he spent a couple of rounds not contributing. The party drunken master and my character came so close to being wiped by these creatures. The party warlock chose to sit back two hundred feet and shoot from a save distance when he could have closed and thrown out naster invocations. We were about level 10. If it was an encounter designed for us when we were level 15+, I have no doubt the two pcs in the thick of it would have perished.

There was a high level game I was in briefly. Party was level 16. Came across all manner of opponets, monstrous and otherwise. The main thing at that level was co-ordinating tactics and getting into the thick of it. Throughout the game, no one disappeared or held back from contributing and even then, some of the encounters were really close victories. It really could have gone either way. If we had rolled slightly lower on the dice, the opponents would have killed us. Capturing us wasn't really an option for them since they were prety cold and merciless. This was with a group of highly optimized characters. It still wasn't a cake walk despite everyone going all out, caster or martial wise.

Note: StreamoftheSky is playing D&D Rocket Tag Turbo Edition, where if your party fails to obliterate a APL+3 encounter in 3 rounds, the players should go home and hang themselves because they are an obvious pollution of human gene pool.

In that paradigm, the only Fighter that mattered was Spiked Chain locker and the only Rogue that mattered was the blinking flasker. Anything else was just showing that your IQ is too low to play D&D, because you FAIL AT IT.

One such high powered game wasn't so fun when I made my character's main shtick intimidate. The only problem was that the character couldn't intimidate anyone or anything. The other players were also really heavy on the sarcasm and racism. All of that pretty much killed any enjoyment I could have for that game.

Recently, I played in another high powered game where the dm emphasized optimization as it was going to be a high power curve sort o campaign. Everyone made really optimized characters but they also roleplayed their character's persinalities. Average encounters wer about APL+3. Boss encounters were APL+6 to APL+8. Had alot of fun in this game since no one was just playing the the mechanical aspects of their character. Even with optimized characters, the party still can't plough through everything. Good teamwork and some tactics really even the playing field when raw power isn't sufficient on its own.

Lets say you were playing a class that doesn't have a particular Int based class skill. There are ways around this. Burn a trait to make it a class skill. Multiclass to synergize your character and to get this skill as a class skill. Or, if the dm allows it, swap out certain class skills to make the int based skill, a class skill for your character. Depends on whether you are willing to explore additional options. Unless you are playing with a dm who completely doesn't allow flexibility of any kind by outright banning traits and all possible options', you can generally still achieve your character concept, regardless of whether your character is sitting on a 7 or 17 Int. Yet to see a dm who ran their games in this manner. A negative modifier doesn't necessarily mean such a pc or npc is doomed to be mediocre at everything related to that particular ability score.

If its a homebrew game, the rules may be a bit more flexible. However, as previously pointed out in the wording of ITWF and GTWF, it states "an off hand attack" and "your off hand weapon." The wording makes it clear that its stacking extra attacks on top of one off hand attack. Its true that the feat doesn't specify exactly only one off hand weapon but if we're going stricly by RAW, you can't stack multi-weapon fighting with itself to gain a number of attacks equal to (4+multiple MWF feats). Main reason being, the MWF feat doesn't state that it stacks with itself. The same way something like improved initiative can only be taken once. To get the greater bonus on top of improved initiative requires the feat, lightning initiative. The feat description clearly states that lightning initiative stacks with improved initiative. Unless the feat description states that a certain feat stacks with itself, it can only be taken once. Since the improved and greater versions of MWF don't exist, such a feat tree isn't an option. I'm going strctly by RAW as I'm not certain if your dm has houseruled an allowance of this stacking with the TWF feat tree.

All in all, 4 attacks is already quite a bit. Your character won't be lacking in the melee department. As previously pointed out, a character with good bab has to wait till level six and have TWF and ITWF. if the off hand is light, penalties are still something like (main) -2,-7, (off)-2,-7. You on the other hand are sitting on -4,-4,-4,-4. you're on -16 while the individual with good bab is sitting on -18. Your character is sitting on the same number of attacks but lower penalties despite the good bab individual investing more (two feats versus your character's one feat). On top of that, you get four attacks straight from the get-go. The good bab individual still has to wait till level six. I'd be pretty happy wih the current setup since from the perspective of mechanical advantages, your character has got a really good deal.

I agree that a 7 int character would not be making elaborate plans. It doesn't necessarily mean that hey would be poor at thinking on their feet. It comes down their skillset and the situation. If everyone is on a ship and its extremely stormy, those with average or below average int but have invested ranks and feats in the appropriate knowledge skill(nature), would have the best chance of figuring out some temporary solution. I've seen 7 cha rogues who are the party diplomats because their average diplomacy check at level 8 was in the high twenties. So this individual is scarred and nowhere near good-looking but when they speak, they rarely offend, regardless of who or what they are addressing.

Also seen 7 int characters who at least formulate some sort of plan, on occasion. Granted, such plans are not elaborate. However, the other pc wth 16+ int never comes up with any such thing. Shys away from social interaction. I've noticed its increasingly common in games. Its the character with the -ve modifier to certain mental stats which are interesting. The ones with +ves in all mental stats, they behave in a very bland fashion. Really odd.

Celestial heritage is not the same thing as powers granted to a cleric. The bloodlines represent an inborn power while clerics are granted powers from an outside source.

For the other bloodlines, I absolutely agree after reading their bloodline descriptions. However, the celestial bloodline is different from the default assumption of "power stemming from the bloodline." I interpret it as the sorcerer drawing power from their bloodline but the power from the bloodline comes from a celestial source.

According to the prd, it states:"Your bloodline is blessed by a celestial power, either from a celestial ancestor or through divine intervention..."
That implies a celestial source which the bloodline is linked to. The increasing levels of sorcerer reflect how much of that link the sorcerer can draw on.

As previously quoted, the prd also states that "Your celestial heritage grants you a great many powers, but they come at a price. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely."

If the sorcerer in the OP could do whatever they desired without repercussions from the higher planes, then whats the price such individuals supposedly pay. Or is the celestial bloodline supposed to mean:

"Your celestial heritage grants you a great many powers, but they come at a price. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely. Regardless of what you do, they never interfere with your existence."

I assume that isn't the case because that doesn't make sense at all. The problem seems to be that the dm didn't communicate the consequences of such actions to the player. Or, the player chose to ignore it and blew a gasket when they were finally hit with the repercussions of their actions.

I'd be pretty pissed myself.

The text Vod uses is fluff and nothing more. There are no alignment restrictions or even ways to change a blood line.

"Congratulations I've changed your entire heritage. Don't care if your dad was an angel. I've rewritten history to make your dad an imp. "

Bloodline is completely unaffected by alignment. GM screwing with that would be enough for me to get up and walk out there.

It is indeed fluff. However, fluff explains how a certain ability works.

Ah yes, dump stats can be a good roleplaying opportunity. Providing comic relief for the party even. Seen some very interesting pcs with dump stats. As long as they aren't fixating on the -ve modifier to much, alot of fun for everyone. The "us vs him" mentality can give rise to trouble in the game. Whats better I've found is a bit of competition between pcs. If its in a social sort of situation, alot of maipulation can be attained by the party. In combat, it gives rise to the party really laying it down on the adversaries. Some potential defeats have been avoided by the party because of it. Depends on the group dynamic and how well everyone communicates with each other.

I like creating characters who have a interesting backstory and a general direction of who or what they are trying to be. The other thing is that I also want the character to be mechanically strong enough to hold their own in combat. At the very least, have a shtick or role they can fulfill which can assist the party. I have a played a flavourful paladin in terms of backstory but was mediocre in most things. 16 strength and charisma didn't matter very much since he couldn't hurt opponents which were equal cr. He was ok in social situations but not good at it. All in all, interesting but mechanically lacking. It was not fun at all. Those three or so gaming sessions were downright annoying and there was no one to blame but myself for it.

There are the other games where I played a pure monk who dumped cha and con but had diplomacy and perform. Main shtick was soaking attacks and somewhat of a party face. Similar to the current kickboxer I'm playing except the kickboxer has a poorer ac and stronger offense. The similarity betwen the two characters is that they can contribute both in and out of combat, making them interesting and at least mechanically sound. These were enjoyable. Flavorful and mechanically solid at what they were trying to do but not very optimized.

Then there was a one session game I was in last month. High level 3.5 campaign with an extra feat every 5 levels.. The gm made it clear it was going to be a hard campaign. Optimization would be very important. Ex-classmate of mine wanted to play a fighter but wasn't sure if the fighter class could keep up with the power curve. He wasn't really an optimizer and wasn't sure how to do it. So I helped him build a fighter which could keep up with the other three party members. Wizard forcing saves of through the roof. Monk/rogue capable of sneak attacking and area of effect stunning even constructs and undead. DC was also through the roof. Barbarian variant capable of ripping through adamantine door with one hit. So I made a tripping fighter and pulled out all the stops on optimization I could think of. Everyone had their role in the party. Throughout the game, even though the party was level 16, no one played only the mechanical advantages. Each pc had their own personality and overall demeanor towards everyone and everything else. Final encounter was 3 cr 20 opponents (balors) and a cr 23 solar. The fighter and barb do crowd control on the balors while the monk and wizard handle the solar. Wizard for some reason, teleports away. Monk ties up the solar for a few rounds while the balors are being dealt with. We won, just barely. High powered game. Very optimized characters who were believable in the sense that they were not just walking stat blocks. Game was enjoyable.

Overall, I think it boils down to what guidelines the dm tells the players. In terms of optimization levels, I wouldn't worry about it too much unless the dm specifically stresses alot of it or just a little. I feel that fluff and mechanical strengths shouldn't be mutually exclusive or else you can barely contribute or are playing an extremely boring and bland character. Too much optimization also breaks certain games. If the dm says its a low magic setting, then the power curve of opponents is going to be lower. In such a case, it might not be the best idea to optimize your character right down to the last magic item body slot or try to get around the character's wbl to gain a higher power level than the other players. Characters who are flavorful and balanced for the campaign are the most fun.

Brian Bachman wrote:

Do you kick your less than optimal friends to the curb every time someone "better" or "cooler" shows up?

doesn't everyone? Starts humming "I'm an a*&+@@#" - Dennis Leary

bwahahahahahahahaha! Pretty much this. Couldn't have expressed it any better myself.

But when I get called a power gamer...or "Everything not Core is broken" or I am not a RPer because I like mechanics to support my concept I just want to scream. Not that anyone here on this has done this, but I hear it alot from Core onlyers.

All good points. Different gaming groups run campaigns with emphasis on different things. I like characters with fluff and an interesting backstory/concept. But at the end of the day, the game uses numbers to reflect how skilled or lacking you are in each respective area. Thats why I also want characters to be able to back what they claim with their actions. You could build a rogue who is supposedly going to be a scout for the party. So if its mainly stealth and perception being the main criteria, such a character should specialize in both. Being 4th level and sitting on a modifier of +9 doesn't make such a character great at what they claim, just passable. Especially in campaigns wherethe dm throws monsters from the bestiarys or monster manuals as they are, unmodified. There is a minimum power curve to keep up with or else you lag behind and have trouble contributing. For characters who are not combat intensive, thats fine. For those that are, it really sucks. I've seen such characters generalize in different areas but not really focus. This isn't so much a bad thing but at high levels, it will bite you in the ass. I remember such a rogue who actually couldn't hit the balor while the rest of the party rained destruction down on it.The other rogue in the party contributed just fine to that encounter.

Good point Titto. A good int gives a rogue so many skill points providing truckloads of versatility outside of combat. Have also seen rogue/swashbuckler. Good int, 10 strength and good dex. Against anything not immune to sneak, damage was good enough to hit through DR and still do good damage. Less skills than a pure rogue but still had quite a number because of the high int. Good capabilities both in and out of combat, not the hardest hitter which is fair considering the character wasn't focused on that. Thats the beauty of the rogue class. It not only gives alot of skill points but also allows a wide range of skills to be class skills for any character with even a one level dip in the rogue.

The most memorable characters need to gain at least afew levels before they are actually memorable to people outside the party. Gaining a widespread reputation takes time, effort and risk. Granted, any class can do this provided they are smart with their approach and the dice do not completely decimate them for considerable lengths of time. The sense of achievement would be heightened for individuals who have certain restrictions based on who they are and how they do things. Things like "lawful" or "good". For anyone who is lawful good or a paladin, it would feel more incredible for them since they are more restricted than most and have succeeded despite all thoe restrictions. Similar to how a LG knight or cavalier feels after repelling the forces of darknesses and protecting innocent townsfolk through not simply being chivalrous(good) but also doing so honourably(lawful).

On the "respecting legitimate authority" clause, that part would be up to the dm to determine since it is not spelled out explicitly in the rules. Respecting all legitimate authority seems odd since it depends what the so called authorities are using the law to accomplish, if they are even utiising the law. I also see that some feel the paladin has to follow such legitimate authority. As stated by previous posters in this thread, respect does not equal blind obedience. The moment someone's definition of respect equals blind compliance, that means they are at best lawful but they are most probably not good aligned. The main reason being, their primary motivation to act is from whoever or whatever they blindly follow and not from truly wanting to protect the innocent or rescue the masses from suffering. Which means the moment they blindly follow an authority which is not good aligned, they have a high chance of falling should they blindly comply.

Well-paced, gritty campaign. Unfortunately, those are not for everyone. Sounds like the players (with the exception of battlefield controller) wanted a more coddled campaign in their favour. Some are not ready to accept that the actions of their characters have consequences and the dice land where they land. They just wanted a safety net straight from the get-go. I'm sure they are alright friends but as far as gamers go, I'd recommend either hashing out the issues or scrapping the game if that doesn't work. Simply because nobody seems to be having fun. Also, the player controlling the battlefield with their caster should be in a group which can work well together. Not stuck in the role of keeping the other self-entitled characters alive.

I've played in parties without a party healer and it was fun in a gritty, high risk way. If the party members are open to varying up their tactic and playing it smart, you don't need a party healer. Potions and scrolls can be found. If you think it can help, wands of healing could be thrown in but I've never really been crazy about those. Seems a bit too convenient. On the other hand, if the party is expecting to be able to power through everything, then you have the choice of either providing more healing, reeling in the power level of the opponents a little, or having them risk a tpk. Nobody likes tpks but a group of fools normally don't last very long anyway.

Tell them not to go through the treasure section. Allow the players to earn their items through dungeon crawls and doing cool stuff instead of crafting and spending gold. One way you could do it is reduce the amount of gold they acquire but ensure that 50% of items are usable by the party. The remaining 50%, you could chalk it up to random treasure rolls.
I've seen dms try to put 90% of items found, be determined by random treasure tables and the result was disastrous. Everyone was way below wbl and underpowered for their level since 3/4 of the loot found was unusable by the party. If you want to allow crafting and purchase of magic items, be careful of how much you allow. Depends on the group but it can severely break the game depending on the players.

Years ago a paladin almost caused the total break up of a group I was playing with.

AD&D, we were going through Temple of Elemental evil adventure.
I was playing a cavilier from UA. One of the other players was playing a half orc thief, but all the players knew OOC that he was an evil assasin.

This half orc had been with the party since day 1, getting into tough spots with us and helping out. He never went against the party. We were running through the first level of the temple, a PC died. The player decided to bring in a paladin.

So this paladin shows up in Hommlet and says "I want to join you to help fight the evil in this area, but he has to go" pointing to the half orc.

The Paladin demanded we let him in the party but he would not join unless the half orc was out. I would guess because the paladin could see he was evil.

The rest of us did not like this new guy trying to tell us what to do, it was not pretty. Very heated talk in and out of character. The DM was so upset he ended up leaving the group and not gaming. The DM was also upset at me because he said since I was playing a cavilier, I should have automatically sided with the paladin.

Another example of a player playing lawful stupid. Paladins not only smite evil but can also try to redeem them. Have them mend their evil ways and use their abilities for righteousness and all that. Such an opportunity can be great role-playing fun for the characters involved.

THey can be dick fighters. Regardless of how self righteous they are being played, still not the strongest offensive melee class. If it comes down to it, other classes like the barb and fighter can really tear through them. On one hand, it depends on how heavily is the player dishing out the lawful stupid. On the other hand, it also depends on how stringent your dm is. I've come across some who require paladins to be played exactly as they deem fit with no wiggle room. There was one scenario where the party pally lost his divine powers after killing evil. The dm however, felt it was unlawful since the pally should have used subdue damage to bring the evil-doers to the authorities. Nearest town was about a couple of hours ride. The party could barely defeat them despite going all out. The righteous triumphed over the wicked, taking such a beating in the process but was punished for it. Truly a shameful display.

I've played a lawful good monk who really clashed with the party rogue/marshal who was trying to do the morally questionable thing of gaining influence at the expense of a few poor bastards. Also currently playing a lawful good kickboxer who is in a group of non lawful individuals. Not even sure any of them are good aligned aside from maybe the reformed fighter. It can set up some really awkward situations for the party and the lawful good character in question. One such situation arose recently when a duel went very wrong. Lets just say that everyone in the group who could spit in the face of honour and lawful conduct did just that. I was a bit disappointed we didn't get to finish the duel since it was really close but the opponent was pulling ahead. I've also seen lawful good rogues. Agents of the crown and all that played really well. Patriotic individuals infiltrating enemy lines of the neighbouring plotting empire and all that. Lawful good can be flavourful in many ways but it is also potentially the most difficult to play at times. Depends on the group mechanic I suppose.

Could be cool. If the pcs bought their items, no big deal. If the pcs got every item from foes they defeated, then that would majorly suck.

If none of the pcs beat the bluff check that they could not suspect anything, according to the rules. To do so despite filing the check would be meta-gaming. In regards to the matter of "giving them gold which doesn't matter," I don't hink its the intention of the dm to punish the players. The dm is simply allowing the possibility of the pcs to be ripped off by con-men, cheats,etc. There really isn't anything wrong with that. I personally like the flavour of such games and I have known others who really hate it. It comes down to the group, whether they can handle it. The pcs are essentially supposed to be the future heroes/villains/incredibly cool people, in the distant future. It only makes sense for them to have to experience certain trials during the course of such a journey. What separates the pcs from not all but most npcs is the sheer amount of risks they take and the ability to triumph from such experiences. Either that or they are able to grow from certain setbacks and defeats. Of course, there are also those who prefer the adventure to be less gritty and dangerous, lower levels of risk, guaranteed payouts from their gp based investments. Nothing wrong with that either but I find such a game doesn't make the pcs special. ALot of things are too smooth sailing. Then again, I also find auto successes boring.

Yep. The rules also state "except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch."
That rule is up to the dm to implement and define what fits or doesn't fit. Ignoring the that part of the rule is not impossible. If the group prefers it that way then that is how it should be.
Could certainly run it that way and if everyone has fun, more power to you guys. Anyhow, to address the 2nd half of the argument, Blitz asked:

(-Are you not actively challenging spellcasters to pass concentration checks like they should be?
-Are spellcasters NEVER receiving damage from enemies so that they HAVE to make a concentration check?
-Are enemies for some reason not targeting the spellcaster who is obviously a huge threat?
-Are spellcasters not being charged with the task of acquiring their material components?
-Are spellcasters not being targeted by enemy spellcasters?)

The answer to all those qustions is generally not. Hence why the casters have the feeling of being superior and are superior in such games because the ones being challenged the most are the martials. Seen mix of games where the martials and melee are challenged. Also seen games where the melee are targeted alot more. In the case of the latter, you have the mentalisty of "casters are so powerful" and who can blame them for thinking so. Also seen games where the melee actually really shine through over the casters but then again, the game isn't run in a vacuum. A concept which alot of people can't seem to grasp. Same with the dpr issue. I'm over this thread. Not so much because opinions differ but the inability to even consider alternatives is sorely lacking. Enjoy your one dimensional perspective and playstyle in a vacuum.

Spell component pouch may be 5 gp at level one. However, if you are trying to say each one is still only 5 gp at level 8, thats complete b$%!~$&s. As for the rest of the points, I supposed it comes down to different playstyles and pace of campaigns.

The 15 minutes spent preparing more spells is not always going to be there. Not in gritty campaigns anyway.

Fighters still have limited feats.You choose what your fighter specializes in or if you want a really nice chance to prevent something like being grappled then you take close quarters fighting. No fighter build can do it all. The same could be said for every other class. As opposed to the solution of "there is a spell for that" as if casters were not limited on the number of spells they can cast per day.

If you're a hard hitting melee character, burn a feat in close quarters fighting. Nothing difficult about it.

Blitz, to sum it up, here's the most common argument for casters so far.
I'll run one by one through the listed examples which make the caster useless.

"An enemy rogue stole the PC spellcaster's material components"

That won't happen since casters have 6 spell component pouches which they obtained easily. Despite certain spell components being greater basilisk's tooth and so on. Or, they have booby trapped thier spell component pouch but never risk accidentally setting the trap off.

"PC spellcaster is grappled or pinned"

Supposedly won't happen because they are guaranteed to win initiative and have cast freedom of movement or are already buffed and concealed.

"PC spellcaster is taking consistent damage that is interrupting their spells (Concentration vs DC 10 + the damage taken + spell level cast)"

Supposedly won't happen since as before, they are already buffed and have won initiative and have the right spells prepped to avoid such phenomena.

"PC spellcaster is being counter-spelled by an enemy deep in enemy lines"

Shouldn't happen, its supposedly viewed as a dick move on the part of the dm.

"Enemy has spell resistance"

Irrelevant. Supposedly most spells prepped are not subject to spell resistance ata all.

"PC spellcaster suffers from a successful cast of a silence spell from an enemy"

They will have burnt the right feat in silent spell as they do for almost every other metamagic feat.

"PC Wizard's spellbook has been stolen by an enemy rogue or perhaps targeted for destruction by an enemy"

Similar to the spell component puch argument. Also viewed as a dick move from the dm.

Above all, whenever the conditions of the situation are not ideal, the genral concensus is for casters to teleport away, prep their remaining "open" spell slots and get back into it x number of minutes later. The opponents do not pursue or gather reinforcements or sound the alert. They are supposedly just waiting at the same spot to get killed.

Good points Blitzkriegbeard. I have wondered that myself because the games I have been in or witnessed pushes both the melee and the casters. Seen both types really pushed to the limit but for some reason some are really offended by the thought of their spellcasters being pressured.

In reply to Tarczan, I did check the fighter build. Even with the error shallowsoul made with the cloak of elvenkind and shadowed armor stacking, if we remove one, his fighter is still slightly better on stealth while yours was better on perception. Because you both exceeded wealth by level, I assumed the two of you had some gp value the two of you agreed upon and were not using wbl. Furthermore, the gp value of your gear exceeds his. Not the other way around. I also noticed the part on higher hp (16) for your ranger. It could indeed come in handy but what is even better than more hp is the improved ability to avoid hits. Played some defensive characters with 10 con in some games, the ones with alot of hp but mediocre ac tend to cop alot of punishment and have to rest/quaff potions/ use scrolls really often. Also, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I'm trying to find every hole in the argument. I merely pointed out the respective strengths , weaknesses and a bit of potential versatility of the two builds. When I stated which was more offensive, which was mix of offense and defense.... In no way did I state or imply that "build x is better than build y all round so class y sux." If you're annoyed because I didn't agree with everything you said then thats too bad since you clearly can't take criticism on your builds. If you want to measure every melee combatant by dpr, feel free to do so but thats a very linear, one dimensional view of martials. I recommend you step away from it since the game isn't run in a vacuum of martials standing opposite dpr dummies and going full round attack all day long, trying to win the grand prize of "most bland combatant."

Not surprising seeing that the ranger build is strength focused while the fighter build is dex focused. It still doesn't even out with wielding the agile weapon since the ranger is wielding the weapon two handed(+6 versus +9). If the fighter build was strength focused, the dpr woud be substantially higher. The fighter presented is one who is a mix of offensive and defensive. The ranger build is alot more purely offensive focused. Your ability scores are also slightly higher. The ranger has a better perception by 3 points. However, the fighter has a higher stealth by six points. So the ranger build is a better offensive build but the fighter is a better scout overall if we are going by the total combined perception and stealth as criteria. The fighter on the other hand, can survive longer by beefing his AC if going full round power attack doesn't cut it. The ranger can hit harder but is stuck with the choice of either dropping the opponent first or being dropped or saving versus conditional affects if touch attacks are used. The total wealth of the ranger's loot is also above the listed amount of 35.6k. Nice try.

APL+6-8 encounters? You guys playing with a big party?

As previously suggested, perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave her to explre the surrounding area when you're meeting with auhorities or certain influential individuals. In the crimson throne campaign I ran, thats what the party did for the CN werewolf barbarian. His presence in court was extremely disastrous, if not for a hasty (and lucky) diplomacy roll from the party warmage, the barb would have been killed or at best locked up and beaten. Later on, they did their own investigation on quests while the werewolf was left to explore the surrounding rural and urban areas.

Strangely, this reminds me of an extremely awkward situation which happened in game recently. Its nowhere near as sensitive as the original post but still odd. The monk I'm playing is visited by a fellow martial artist and a scout to challenge him for a piece of an artifact. The rules are outlined for the duel. The party ninja decides to issue a challenge to the scout. The duel begins and the ninja dispatches the scout within three rounds. My monk and this travelling monk are quite evenly matched despite him having a dancing sword. Then the ninja jumps in and attacks him sevrely injuring him in the process. The injured scout throws something which makes me and the ninja sneeze for a dozen rounds or so. scout is blown to bits by npc warmage. It was really awkward. Managed to prevent him from being killed but there was a fair amount of awkwardness. Thats the difference between lawful good and chaotic neutral. Its difficult to get along from time to time.

Rynjin wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

All you need to be a scout is Stealth and Perception so don't start moving the goalposts before you've even seen it.

No, this is leaving the goalposts firmly in place. "Out of combat" does not mean "Looking around a bit before combat starts". Perception and to a lesser extent, Stealth are still combat skills, much like Acrobatics is.

If your character only has Stealth and Perception, then he's still going to run into the same problem with "What does he do in social situations? Sit in the corner and look around some?".

shallowsoul wrote:

The build is in the multi functional fighter thread I started in Advice. I can already tell it won't make a difference because you won't own up and admit to anything.

Telling me it's somewhere in a thread with 6 pages isn't very helpful.

Keep the g@% d%#n goalposts where they are please. I didn't build my concept for social situations. He is a scout who is used to being out in the wilds alone so being social is pointless.

Please stop adding more and more things to make your argument valid.

You've been proven wrong so bow out and admit defeat.

I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore.

Just leave it be. Some are just impossible to convince. You stated it yourself previously about after showing them that the fighter can do x, people start claiming the fighter can't do y. It just carries on from there. Eventually, it reaches the stage where, they demamd you build a fighter which can do half a dozen things very well which is impossible. Off the bat, I notice alot of them also find the rogue class to be weaksauce. Something which is very surprising. Given thei perspective of melee characters and especially the fighter, it isn't surprising. Good scout build though. That character and and someone else with levels in the in 3.5 scout class would tear it up.

I've seen the same thing said about monks and rogues and the threads about them being weaksauce and all that. Can't say I agree with them though. All classes can specialize but the fighter can specialize in multiple things due to their ridiculous number of feats.

@Zenogu: good point. I've thought the same thing in the past whn I
was playing a ninja. Versus certain opponents with alot of
natural, I somewhat wished there was a fighter in the party.

Flail snail monk. Specializing in stunning fist. Sorry, it should be stunning flail. At high levels, man that snail could slither charge.

With fighters, the good thing about them is they can specialize in multiple aspects of combat. You want to make a fighter which can hit hard, has good ac for their level, great at a particular combat manoeuver, high initiative? They can do it. Or instead of the high initiative, make them great at cutting down unseen opponents in base with them? Also very much achievable. Or instead of that, you want to make them great at interrupting spellcasters, even those with total concealment. Seen it done. That fighter actually beat a wizard above his level one on one and the fighter wasn't rolling incredibly well. The point is that they can do so much. However, based on what feats, skills and ability scores you choose to improve and neglect will determine what they can and can't do. The same goes for casters except it also includes the selection of spells you chose for them to know. Situational factors also come into play for everyone regardless of their class. I've yet to see a well made fighter who had trouble contributing to a game in more than just one aspect.

With social contracts, it could vary from group to group. Not just depending on the dm but also players. If its not your preference then so be it. I've never actualy seen any gaming groups draw up social contracts stating "these are the rules." The groups I know leave it slightly more flexible. That is of course only achievable with a minimum level of mutual trust, maturity and common sense. Worked out pretty well for them so far.